Main Menu

Dean Haskins calls for “Birther Summit”

Dean Haskins

Dean Haskins is the author of of a YouTube video featured here in my recent article, Slick video: 9 lies in 45 seconds! Mr. Haskins has been making videos about Obama’s eligibility since Leo Donofrio invented the two-citizen requirement for the presidency in 2008. I had a mild curiosity about just who this guy was, and to my surprise today, I learned an interesting biographical fact: Dean Haskins is the brother of Terry Haskins, the late Speaker Pro Tem of the South Carolina House of Representatives.

This information was revealed in an open letter from Dean Haskins to South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham published on the Canada Free Press website. The letter is addressed to Graham, partially because Graham is known to have told his constituents that Barack Obama is eligible to be President because he’s 35 years old and born in Hawaii, as in the letter following:

Lindsey Graham Letter

Graham has also called the birthers “crazy.”

So Mr. Haskins appeals to Graham, in deference to his late brother, to seriously consider his letter rather than throwing it in the “birther bin.” Haskins starts off his argument with one of his video trademark lies:

The historic record confirms that, not only did the founding fathers regard the term “natural born Citizen” to mean “one born in this country to citizen parents,” but the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that definition in 1875, and in so doing, created a binding precedent that has never been overturned.

(That “precedent” refers to the Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett, where the court says that it is not going to decide the question of citizenship for the American-born children of aliens.) πŸ™„

Haskins then completes the birther paradigm by claiming that the long-form birth certificate is a fake. The third standard birther lie is found here also: “I’ll be as brief as possible here.” The letter is very, very long.

In the end Haskins calls for a “Birther Summit” which he describes:

… there could be leaders from both sides of this issue assembled. You gather as many of your colleagues as you desire, and I’ll bring various leaders from our movement (which will include attorneys, Ph.Ds, and military, as well as other notable spokespeople).

I would dearly love to see Sen. Graham’s reply.

Note: Mr. Haskins has made himself a public figure here in a very public way through his open letter highlighting his relationship to SC House Speaker Terry Haskins. For this reason, I am including these limited biographical details and his photo. It is part of the news story. A Haskins photo, although not the one I used, accompanied the Canada Free Press article.

, , , , , ,

59 Responses to Dean Haskins calls for “Birther Summit”

  1. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2011 at 6:09 pm #

    Dean Haskins maintains the Terry Haskins memorial site http://www.terryhaskins.com/

    I refuse to believe that Dean Haskins is Terry Haskins brother without copies of both of their birth certificates. PDF’s will not be accepted. I fully anticipate that my experts will determine anything that is submitted to be a forgery.

  2. avatar
    Verbalobe July 1, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    Is a Summit larger or smaller than a Usurpathon?

  3. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    Who would attend? Orly? Berg? Trump? Jerome Corsi? Leo Donofrio? Mario Apuzzo? I would buy a ticket to attend that freak show.

  4. avatar
    aarrgghh July 1, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    hmm … “birther nadir” more like it.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    I would think Apuzzo, M. Gen. Vallely, Donofrio, Cmdr. Kerchner and Corsi. Berg doesn’t believe the two-parent theory, Trump would hog the show, and Taitz is well, Taitz.

    Reality Check: Who would attend? Orly? Berg? Trump? Jerome Corsi? Leo Donofrio? Mario Apuzzo? I would buy a ticket to attend that freak show.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    You think the wedding photo that includes Terry and Dean is Photoshopped?

    Reality Check: I refuse to believe that Dean Haskins is Terry Haskins brother without copies of both of their birth certificates.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    I got up this morning thinking that I wouldn’t have anything to write about. Silly me.

  8. avatar
    Hotlanta Mike's Ex-Wife July 1, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    Hmmmm, gathering both sides of an issue together in one location with attorneys present. That sounds like something that’s already been tried, more than once. It’s called a lawsuit.

  9. avatar
    Suranis July 1, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    Such a summit would not last 5 minutes without the birther side fighting with one another. That’s one of the things that Mr Haskins missed in his latest idea. They all HATE one another.

    By contrast, the debunkers would order Thai food.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    I’m in.

    Suranis: By contrast, the debunkers would order Thai food.

  11. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 1, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    Suranis:
    Such a summit would not last 5 minutes without the birther side fighting with one another. That’s one of the things that Mr Haskins missed in his latest idea. They all HATE one another.

    By contrast, the debunkers would order Thai food.

    And this is a problem why?? I’d love to see Berg, Taitz, et al quarrel while I had pad thai.

    Though maybe Indonesian food might be more appropriate πŸ™‚

  12. avatar
    Northland10 July 1, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    Patrick McKinnion: Though maybe Indonesian food might be more appropriate

    Oysters Mombasa?

  13. avatar
    Majority Will July 1, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    Make it a luau. Aloha oy.

  14. avatar
    John Potter July 1, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    Doc (or anyone),

    Do you really feel that “… Leo Donofrio invented the two-citizen requirement for the presidency in 2008”? My readings indicate it’s been around far longer since at least Reconstruction, and that they folded it into the mix because it fit their purposes.

  15. avatar
    Scientist July 1, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    John Potter: Do you really feel that “… Leo Donofrio invented the two-citizen requirement for the presidency in 2008‘? My readings indicate it’s been around far longer since at least Reconstruction, and that they folded it into the mix because it fit their purposes

    I have never seen a citation prior to late 2008. Do you have one? The issue of parental citizenship was never raised with Spiro Agnew (whose father is shown on some census documents as an aien at the time of his birth), nor with several candidates through history who were the children of immigrants and whose parents might not have naturalized when they were born. Regarding Obama, he announced early in 2007. A “patriot” who believed him inelligible had a “patriotic” duty to come forward promptly and bring this to everyone’s attention.so the matter could be dealt with before such a person actually got elected. Time is always of the essence of the law; an objection registered too late is void.

  16. avatar
    gorefan July 1, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    Scientist: I have never seen a citation prior to late 2008.

    Breckinridge Long questioned whether Charles Evans Hughes was a “natural born citizen” in 1916.

    “He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government.”

    CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS, Vol. 146-148, pp. 220-222.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29730775/Breckenridge-Long-Nb

  17. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

    I had never heard of de Vattel before Ken Dunbar started pushing the two citizen parent theory on Ed Hale’s Plains Radio in early 2009. The two citizen theory is an anti-Obama fabrication.
    John Potter:
    Doc (or anyone),

    Do you really feel that “… Leo Donofrio invented the two-citizen requirement for the presidency in 2008‘? My readings indicate it’s been around far longer since at least Reconstruction, and that they folded it into the mix because it fit their purposes.

  18. avatar
    Suranis July 1, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    Scientist: I have never seen a citation prior to late 2008.Do you have one?

    There sbeen a few cases challenging Jus Soli. Perkins Vs Elg was one. Barry v Mercein was another. In all cases the notion that alien patrentage affected US citizenship was rejected. The cases did give great weight to a persons choices when they achieved the age of 21 though. If Obama had chosen to renounce his US citizenship after 18 he might have had a real problem.

  19. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen July 2, 2011 at 12:49 am #

    A birther summit with people from both side of the aisle? Mayonnaise spill on aisle 3!

    Haskins would have better success getting a group of people from the ultra right side of the spectrum discussing the Holocaust hoax. He’s probably feel right at home there, too.

  20. avatar
    Georgetown July 2, 2011 at 4:12 am #

    Did Leo invent it or did Congress? Oh haven’t heard about the Congressional investigation of John McCain’s citizenship at birth? Well let me enlighten you,
    the 110th Congress by unanimous consent SJR 511

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

    There you have it the words of Congress “to American Citizen Parents”. Congress failed to act.

  21. avatar
    obsolete July 2, 2011 at 4:42 am #

    Georgetown: Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

    So not only do you need two American citizen parents to be considered “Natural Born”, you also have to be born “on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936”.
    Obama’s forgers missed this when making his fake LFBC.

  22. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2011 at 6:33 am #

    Georgetown:
    Did Leo invent it or did Congress? Oh haven’t heard about the Congressional investigation of John McCain’s citizenship at birth? Well let me enlighten you,the 110th Congressby unanimous consent SJR 511

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

    There you have itthe words ofCongress “to American CitizenParents”. Congress failedto act.

    You’re confused. Let me enlighten you.

    First, look up the meaning of “non-binding Senate resolution” or “opinion” as in S.Res.511.

    But this is really irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility since the Senate is discussing the natural born status of McCain as a candidate born outside of the United States.

    So next, read this:

    “ADMISSION AS STATE”

    “Hawaii was admitted into the Union on August 21, 1959, on
    issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat.
    c74, as required by sections 1 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 86-3, Mar. 18,
    1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out below.

    HAWAII STATEHOOD
    Pub. L. 86-3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, as amended, provided:
    “[Sec. 1. Declaration: acceptance, ratification, and confirmation
    of Constitution.] That, subject to the provisions of this Act, and
    upon issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c) of this
    Act, the State of Hawaii is hereby declared to be a State of the
    United States of America, is declared admitted into the Union on an
    equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever, and
    the constitution formed pursuant to the provisions of the Act of
    the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii entitled ‘An Act to provide
    for a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State
    constitution, and the forwarding of the same to the Congress of the
    United States, and appropriating money therefor’, approved May 20,
    1949 (Act 334, Session Laws of Hawaii, 1949), and adopted by a vote
    of the people of Hawaii in the election held on November 7, 1950,
    is hereby found to be republican in form and in conformity with the
    Constitution of the United States and the principles of the
    Declaration of Independence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and
    confirmed.”

    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/48C3.txt

    President Obama was born in the United States in 1961. See the difference?

    You’re welcome.

  23. avatar
    John Potter July 2, 2011 at 6:42 am #

    Scientist,

    I don’t have a citation (yet, don’t know if such exists) of an instance of anyone spouting the precise theory in regards to the presidency (must have 2 citizen parents (jus sanguinis) to be a natural born citizen per Vattel), rather postulating that the birthers, rather than whipping this up out of thin air, are merely latching onto previously existing ideas and refocusing them on the presidency as a means of invalidating Obama.

    So, I don’t have a coherent thesis at this point, just trying to dig up where these ideas come from. As I am new to the field, if I am flailing, please advise.

    The “Original Intent” crowd has been trying to cast the Framers as Vattel acolytes. The writings of Dr. John Coleman and David Barton are recent examples. There are various discarded/flawed interpretations of the 14th Amendment pushed by both the “Original Intent”ers and what I’ll charitably call Southern heritage groups. Originalintent.org’s PDF write-up dates to 2003, similar theories at RTR.org. The development of sovereign citizen theory by Milton Libby centered on Original Intent / 14th amendment interpretations. Corsi also plays around with the 14th amendment, in similar ways.

    Behold! online reprints numerous “classic” white supremacist pamphlets from the 1980s. One in particular recounts their view of some of the actions of the 39th Congress…
    http://www.beholdonline.info/essays/corruption_part_1.html

    …which quotes “Mr. Rogers” (NJ) as saying of the Civil Rights Bill of 1868:

    “‘If you pass this bill, you will allow the negros of this country to compete for the high office of President of the United States. Because if they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letter of the Constitution of the United States, which allows all natural-born citizens to become candidates for the Presidency, and to exercise the duties of that office if elected. … [Editor’s Note: Observe that Mr. Rogers uses the phase ‘natural-born citizens’ and the 14th amendment uses the phrase ‘all persons born’ which substitutes the word ‘person’ for ‘citizen’ and deletes the word ‘natural.’]”

    This is a random selection. There’s tons of material out there, suggesting attempts to redefine citizenship in an effort to deny eligibility, suffrage, civil rights, have been around a long time, and persisted from the late 19th down to today on the far right. The birther version seems to be a new permutation tooled for a specific use, invalidating Obama, However, if actually codified, it would have far reaching implications, denying natural born citizen status to whole classes of people … meshing well with long held goals of white supremacists.

    This isn’t an attempt to say birthers must be racist / xenophobic, but rather that they apparently don’t care about the provenance of the ideas they borrow. Did birtherism borrow the idea, inherit the idea, or bring it along from whence it came? I dunno.

    To be most plain, I don’t believe for a second that these nimrods are sharp enough to “invent” (or even find) anything so witty as the Vattel citizenship theory on their own.

    Scientist: I have never seen a citation prior to late 2008.Do you have one?

  24. avatar
    Ballantine July 2, 2011 at 7:25 am #

    My view is this. The first time I saw the theory was in the 1840’s from a Virginia scholar. At the time there was a debate about whether freed slaves could be citizens. James Kent’s Commentaries, the leading law book of the time, said slaves were natural born citizens under the disability of slavery and hence became natural born citizens when the disability was removed. This was probably the majority view in the north, but obviously not so popular in some quarters. Those opposed to black citizenship didn’t appear to have a coherent theory which would be evidence when the issue came to a head in Dred Scott, which is fairly incoherent. In the 14th Amendment Congress, I don’t think anyone expressly put forth the two-parent theory, though some seemed to have reservation about making blacks, tamed indians and the Chinese eligible to be President. But clearly the view in that Congress, and the next, was that they were. I am not sure what Bingham meant by his statement canonized by the Birthers. He was all over the map on the issue but he cited Kent’s position that freed blacks were natural born citizens due to their native birth when obviously, they didn’t have citizen parents.

    After the republicans lost power, there was push-back against the broad language of the 14th Amendment and most of the Amendment was gutted for the next century. The citizenship clause’s clear language was attacked with respect to the chinese and indians. The opposition against chinese citizenship was vile and racist. In this period we saw some court cases, state department statements and a few scholars like Alexander Morse spouting theories similar to Vattel or prohibition of dual allegiance or something along these lines. If these persons were not racist, their views were championed by racists. I do not think these views ever became dominant and were essentially put to rest by Wong Kim Ark. Of course, the dissent in Wong Kim Ark at least hints at a two citizen parent definition of “natural born citizen,” but is not clear. So, no, the theory is not new. However, the history of such theory in its various forms is not pretty.

  25. avatar
    Northland10 July 2, 2011 at 7:45 am #

    gorefan: Breckinridge Long questioned whether Charles Evans Hughes was a “natural born citizen” in 1916.

    Ballantine: I am not sure what Bingham meant by his statement canonized by the Birthers.

    Yet, Charles Hughes was nominated by the Republicans and received 254 electoral votes. I suppose the birthers would claim that he was not vetted, also?

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 2, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    Would you agree that none of these writers made a distinction between someone born a citizen and a natural born citizen? Certainly, as you say, there were writers making the argument that the children of non-citizens weren’t citizens (something settled in the negative by US v Wong), but it is my contention that Donofrio (or someone else around that time) invented the concept in 2008 that someone could be born a citizen in the United States but not be called “natural born” because of their parentage.

    Ballantine: The first time I saw the theory was in the 1840β€²s from a Virginia scholar. At the time there was a debate about whether freed slaves could be citizens.

  27. avatar
    ballantine July 2, 2011 at 9:07 am #

    I think the first to appear to make an argument along those lines was Morse after Wong Kim Ark. But you are right that the 19th century authority was claiming they were neither citizens nor natural born citizens. After Wong’s holding, there wasn’t much argument that they were not citizens.

    “If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “ native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.”

  28. avatar
    gorefan July 2, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    Northland10: Yet, Charles Hughes was nominated by the Republicans

    Charles Evan Hughes quit the Supreme Court to run forPresident and then later was nominated to the Supreme Court and became Chief Justice.

    I wonder how he defined “natural born”?

  29. avatar
    Northland10 July 2, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

    gorefan: I wonder how he defined “natural born”?

    It makes me wonder how Justice McReynolds would consider Hughes and natural-born. Granted, Hughes was white and not Jewish (or female), so McReynolds may not have had much issue.

  30. avatar
    kenyanbornobamacorn July 2, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    Since Leo Donofrio “INVENTED” the two-citizen requirement???

    You only WISH this was true…wait til you see my next video, you will be like HUUUUH!!!

    I found the PROOF and Hawaii even backs me up on it!

    NEW video out SOON!

  31. avatar
    Black Lion July 2, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    kenyanbornobamacorn: Since Leo Donofrio “INVENTED” the two-citizen requirement???You only WISH this was true…wait til you see my next video, you will be like HUUUUH!!!I found the PROOF and Hawaii even backs me up on it!NEW video out SOON!

    And where has all of this “proof” taken you to? Have any lawyer agreed with you? Has even one GOP politican supported your wild and non legally supported rantings? Or even as you post each humorous video, Barack Obama is still the President of the United States….Hilarious…

  32. avatar
    Reality Check July 2, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    I am still waiting the video proof that the Obots crashed Blue Falcon Terry’s got of of the Brig party.

  33. avatar
    G July 2, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    *yawn*
    …any day now…*rolls eyes*
    There is very little difference between you and the wide-eyed homeless kook preaching on a street corner, except that your street corner is virtual. Good luck with yet another nonsense and meaningless video that we neither care about nor will have any real world impact. You are not supposed to be using this site to pimp traffic to yours. Go peddle your crazy wares elsewhere.

    kenyanbornobamacorn:
    Since Leo Donofrio “INVENTED” the two-citizen requirement???

    You only WISH this was true…wait til you see my next video, you will be like HUUUUH!!!

    I found the PROOF and Hawaii even backs me up on it!

    NEW video out SOON!

  34. avatar
    gorefan July 3, 2011 at 12:15 am #

    Mario is directing people to the birther summit.

    http://birthersummit.org/

  35. avatar
    obsolete July 3, 2011 at 12:53 am #

    gorefan: Mario is directing people to the birther summit.

    http://birthersummit.org/

    I’ll pass on the coordinates to the CIA predator team.
    The Messiah will be pleased.

  36. avatar
    G July 3, 2011 at 1:10 am #

    Yeah, the Birthistani have been talking about trying to centralize a hub for their nonsense for quite some time now. I suspect that is what this latest attempt is. The site is actually more professional looking than most birther sites (which doesn’t say much for the rest of those sites) and is so far pimping their Blue Falcon buddy, Lakin. Therefore, I suspect the same money and same folks behind pimping Lakin and getting him to be their gullible cause celebre are behind this (i.e. the Hemenways and whoever else helps fund them).

    I notice that they don’t actually have any summit or events yet. You’d think that they would bother to actually have content before putting the website together, but that requires more thought and planning than birthers seem to be capable of.

    Worthy of bookmarking for laughs and to note where the roach motel is located and to keep an eye on their latest EPIC FAIL effort in the making. Should we even take bets if any physical summit ever takes place and if so, how many handfuls of deadenders will actually show?

    gorefan:
    Mario is directing people to the birther summit.

    http://birthersummit.org/

  37. avatar
    aarrgghh July 3, 2011 at 2:08 am #

    funny how poor put-upon birfers keep complaining how much they hate being called “birthers” … yet they christen their next little attempt for attention “the birther summit”.

  38. avatar
    Lupin July 3, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    In a post in the thread above, G said (I’m paraphrasing) that he is tired of often repeating the same point again and again to the terminally dense.

    I certainly sympathize because I feel very much like he does when it comes to Vattel.

    As has been demonstrated many times before, Vattel NEVER claimed one needed two parents who were citizens to be a citizen. That was a false belief “credited” to Vattel because (at best) of a bad translation or misunderstanding or (at worst) willful distortion of what he wrote.

    To recap the salient points:
    — whether Vattel’s terminology can be applied to define the term “natural-born citizen” is highly debatable
    — Vattel used a group plural so one parent would be enough anyway
    — The word “parens” in Vattel’s means relative, not just mom and dad
    — Vattel is talking about his country and accepts that others, such as England, have other systems, equally valid

    Of course KBOA can only hope to raise to the level of “terminally dense” one day.

  39. avatar
    Lupin July 3, 2011 at 2:36 am #

    G: There is very little difference between you and the wide-eyed homeless kook preaching on a street corner

    When I lived in London (a long time ago) I used to go & listen to the kooks ranting on Hyde Park corner and at that time, the “quality” (if I may use that term) of their rants was a lot better and more wholesome than what KBOA has been able to muster so far.

    It is however possible that the kooks are worse today; I wouldn’t know.

  40. avatar
    John Potter July 3, 2011 at 3:28 am #

    The climax of the Birther orgy will be the announcement of the foundation of the Vattel Institute for Advanced Studies in Birtherism.

    Due to an unfortunate coincidence in timing, the brand recognition of the fledgling Institute will be crippled by a stunning announcement made the preceding day by Kraft Foods. After long negotiations with ConAgra, Kraft has acquired the Ro*Tel brand line of canned sauces and will pair its products with those of Velveeta. Just in time for football season, they’re launching a new line of ready-mixed cheese dips under a new co-brand … Va*Tel.

  41. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion July 3, 2011 at 3:56 am #

    kenyanbornobamacorn:
    NEW video out SOON!

    “……any day now……any day now……any day now……any day now……any day now……any day now……”

  42. avatar
    Ballantine July 3, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    kenyanbornobamacorn: Since Leo Donofrio “INVENTED” the two-citizen requirement???You only WISH this was true…wait til you see my next video, you will be like HUUUUH!!!I found the PROOF and Hawaii even backs me up on it!NEW video out SOON!

    Wow, another video no one will watch. Remember to include all the citations to Vattel completely unrelated to citizenship. Real powerful stuff. Be sure to tell everyone that the original French didn’t translate into “natural born citizen.” Make sure to tell everyone what Kent said about piracy rather than what he said about citizenship or Presidential elgiblity. Three years of your life researching and not one shred of evidence yet. Very sad indeed.

  43. avatar
    roadburner July 3, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    the question that i´ve found reflecting on is, if obama loses the next election, who will people like kenyanbornobamacorn have to hate?

    compound this with what would have been 4 years worth of their spare time wasted, and they´ve got one hell of a void to fill.

    bit of a sad situation really…

  44. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2011 at 1:12 pm #

    roadburner: the question that i´ve found reflecting on is, if obama loses the next election, who will people like kenyanbornobamacorn have to hate?

    Themselves as always. Outward hatred is just a cowardly projection.

  45. avatar
    Nathanael July 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    kenyanbornobamacorn:
    wait til you see my next video^H^H^H exhibit, you will be like HUUUUH!!!

    Hey, quit plagiarizing Orly.

  46. avatar
    obsolete July 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    roadburner: the question that i´ve found reflecting on is, if obama loses the next election, who will people like kenyanbornobamacorn have to hate?

    They will be sore winners, and spend the next four years hassling Congress to investigate and prosecute the past crimes of Obama, his administration, the 69 million traitors that voted for him, and everyone who ever uttered his name.

  47. avatar
    Charlie Burrow July 4, 2011 at 3:23 pm #

    FYI, I just sent the following email to Wiley Publishing Co. and Dean Haskins:

    Subject: “for Dummies” trademark

    To: PermissionsUS@wiley.com

    I understand that the term “for Dummies” is a registered trademark of Wiley Publishing and wonder if Dean Haskins, producer of the recently released video,“Natural Born Citizen for Dummies,” has permission to use the term in the title of his video, which alleges that President Obama does not meet the legal requirements to hold the office of president. I saw nothing in the video or on Mr. Haskins blog indicating that the term was trademarked or that he had permission for its use.

    Personally, I believe Mr. Haskins’ use of your trademark is detrimental to the best interests of Wiley Publishing.

    Video: http://deanhaskins.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/natural-born-citizen-for-dummies/

    Thanks,

    Charlie Burrow
    Indianola, Washington

  48. avatar
    Majority Will July 4, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    Charlie Burrow:
    FYI, I just sent the following email to Wiley Publishing Co. and Dean Haskins:

    Subject: “for Dummies” trademark

    To: PermissionsUS@wiley.com

    I understand that the term “for Dummies” is a registered trademark of Wiley Publishing and wonder if Dean Haskins, producer of the recently released video,“Natural Born Citizen for Dummies,” has permission to use the term in the title of his video, which alleges that President Obama does not meet the legal requirements to hold the office of president. I saw nothing in the video or on Mr. Haskins blog indicating that the term was trademarked or that he had permission for its use.

    Personally, I believe Mr. Haskins’ use of your trademark is detrimental to the best interests of Wiley Publishing.

    Video: http://deanhaskins.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/natural-born-citizen-for-dummies/

    Thanks,

    Charlie Burrow
    Indianola, Washington

    Good point and well done.

  49. avatar
    Charlie Burrow July 4, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    “for Dummies” update:

    I rec’d an automated message from Wiley Publishing indicating that the email address I sent the message to was no longer being used to handle permission requests so I forwarded it to Wiley’s corporate secretary for want of a better choice and asked him to forward it to the appropriate party.

    So far I’ve received 3 responses from Dean Haskins:

    1) “And, personally, I believe Mr. Burrow is a petty, pompous ass.”
    2) “Wonder if we can make you famous now.” [copy of my Facebook profile image]
    3) “It appears you have a lot of work to do today: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=for+dummies&aq=0

    In sum, Dean used the time honored tactic of attacking the questioner while not answering the question, i.e., did he have permission to use the trademark? But, perhaps unwittingly, he seems to imply that he doesn’t have permission, by providing a link to a list of other “for dummies” users, apparently as evidence that “everybody else is doing it.”

  50. avatar
    Charlie Burrow July 4, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    “for Dummies” update #2, Dean Haskins reply #4:

    “Dear Communist,
    “Just thought you’d like to know that Wiley Publishing is now attributed in the video.
    “Find a hobby.”

    Gee, and here I thought communists were the ones who ignored intellectual property rights’ protections like trademarks, copyrights, patents, etc. Silly me!

  51. avatar
    Reality Check July 4, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    Dean is a real piece of work. He is going to get Obama out of office any day now.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 4, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    I have “For Dummies” articles here and even facsimile covers of Dummy books. However, I do not believe that these usages confuse anyone over what I offer vs what Wiley offers and it does not cause them any loss of commerce. I consider them parodies of the books.

    I can appreciate that they might want to be hard-nosed about it so that “For Dummies” won’t go the way of the Kleenex or the Xerox copy. If they ask, I will of course remove the content.

    Since “for dummies” is descriptive of the product Wiley sells, I presume that it is on the secondary registry. For example, if I sold a like of bicycles with training wheels called “bicycles for dummies” I don’t think that infringes because Wiley is selling books. Neither my articles nor Mr. Haskins’ video are books, and neither is going to make confusion in the market place.

    For example, one of the “for dummies” trademarks is “Non-fiction books, guides, manuals, and catalogs on a wide variety of topics” and “clothing, namely, T-shirts, polo shirts, sweatshirts and hats” and “WIDE VARIETY OF TOYS, NAMELY, PLAY FIGURES, AERODYNAMIC DISCS FOR USE IN PLAYING CATCH, BALLOONS, BOARD GAMES,, CARD GAMES AND YO-YOS” and “computerized on-line services, namely, providing a web site containing information and databases on a wide variety of topics, online shopping services”, “[ floppy disks, ] CD ROMs [ and audiocassettes ] on a wide variety of topics”, “prerecorded videos and cassettes, compact disc random operating memories, laser discs and computer programs regarding business and general reference.”

    I don’t see how Wiley has trademarked “for dummies” as a political smear.

    You can search trademarks at uspto.gov.

  53. avatar
    Charlie Burrow July 4, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    Thanks Doc for explaining “Trademarks for Dummies.” My guess is Haskins wouldn’t classify his video under “political smears.” Maybe something like “Applied Constitutional Law” or “Greatest Crimes in History.”

  54. avatar
    Charlie Burrow July 4, 2011 at 9:59 pm #

    “for Dummies” update #3, Dean Haskins reply #5:

    “Comrade Tattletale,”

    “It appears you have more work to do. Shall you report this to the authorities, or shall I?
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/de-vattel-for-dummies/

    I responded to Haskins as follows:

    Dean, I’ve already raised this issue on Dr. Conspiracy’s website. He acknowledges his prior use of the “for Dummies” term and says he will remove them if asked and states “Neither my articles nor Mr. Haskins’ video are books, and neither is going to make confusion in the market place.” He goes on to state, apparently in reference to your video: “I don’t see how Wiley has trademarked for dummies’ as a political smear.” See the complete thread here:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/dean-haskins-calls-for-birther-summit/#comment-125128

    If and when Wiley Publishing responds to my query, I will post it on Doc’s site and would expect him to act in accordance with Wiley’s position on the issue. If he doesn’t, I will not hesitate to advise Wiley. Meanwhile, you’re obviously free to notify Wiley yourself, it you don’t want to wait.

  55. avatar
    J. Potter July 5, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    There are references from from throughout our history, instances of writers and speakers expressing concerns that, if “those people” are recognized as not just citizens, but NBCs, they would be able to attain high office … not the easiest to find. When I posed the question, it was because I was hoping someone else had already done the research. Know it’s out there, know I’ve seen it, just have to re-find them.

    Like my keys, haha.

    However, finding a reference to the exact Birther formulation does seem unlikely. Would be sweet tho. May have to resort to going undercover and asking certain people for their sources of inspiration πŸ˜‰

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Would you agree that none of these writers made a distinction between someone born a citizen and a natural born citizen?

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 5, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    The instances I know of that match what you describe were arguments about citizenship (debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment and losing briefs in US v Wong). In every case, you could substitute “born citizen” with “natural born citizen” and not change the meaning in context.

    This is the fallacy the birthers make, dividing sources between citations that say “natural born citizen” and those that say “native born citizen” and those that say or describe being born a citizen — and trying to say that they are different.

    J. Potter: There are references from from throughout our history, instances of writers and speakers expressing concerns that, if “those people” are recognized as not just citizens, but NBCs, they would be able to attain high office … not the easiest to find.

  57. avatar
    Thrifty July 5, 2011 at 2:33 pm #

    roadburner: the question that i´ve found reflecting on is, if obama loses the next election, who will people like kenyanbornobamacorn have to hate?

    Who were they hating on from 2001-2007? There will always be Democrats in the legislature. 2007-2009, when Democrats controlled Congress but not the White House, they of course had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

  58. avatar
    Jill Wrenbeck July 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Make it a luau. Aloha oy.

    I will gladly come to the luau. But Orly HAS to be the pig. I’ll bring the apple!

  59. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    Jill Wrenbeck: I will gladly come to the luau. But Orly HAS to be the pig. I’ll bring the apple!

    Ewww. And definitely not kosher!